“That one can convince one’s opponents with printed reasons, I have not believed since the year 1764. It is not for that purpose that I have taken up my pen, but rather merely to annoy them, and to give strength and courage to those on our side, and to make it known to the others that they have not convinced us.”
G.C. Lichtenberg (1742 – 1799), courtesy of 'Deogolwulf'

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The unreadable in pursuit of the indefinable

Let me begin by stating clearly that Richard Seymour, proprietor of 'Lenin's Tomb' (I refuse to give it a link), is amongst the very worst mouth-dribblers inhabiting 'Blogdom'. The title of his site provides you with due warning as to its contents which are a more or less non-stop and eye-stabbingly tedious recitation of extreme Left-wing opinions. So not just shit, then, but shit and vomit mixed! I have been banned from many a site but being banned from 'Lenin's Tomb' I count as the equivalent of a regimental colour, to be flaunted with pride. I haven't visited Seymour's pile of offal for some time, indeed, I had almost forgotten him but suddenly I came across his name in Arts & Letters Daily which pointed me towards a book review in The Daily Beast.

Apparently, ranting Richard Seymour, with a mighty, year-long effort, has swivelled his pea-shooter in the direction of a real polemicist, the late Christopher Hitchens and produced a squeak of antipathy according to the reviewer, James Kirchik:

Undergirding all of these accusations is the assertion that Hitchens was an opportunist, and that his supposed transformation from a radical into a “left-wing defector with a soft spot for empire” was a conscious rebranding assumed for reasons of self-promotion. Seymour claims that the narrative of a left-to-right shift, however, was wildly overstated, particularly by Hitchens himself, and that “not only was Hitchens a man of the right in his last years, but his predilections for a certain kind of right-wing radicalism ... pre-dated his apostasy.”

I am in no position to defend Hitchens for the simple reason that I never read a word he wrote, however, reading of him, I was intrigued, as I am by anybody similar, when he changed his mind on several important matters. I always view people whose minds have been set in concrete since they were teenagers with deep suspicion mixed with pitying disdain. Needless to say, Seymour's mind hasn't changed since his last nappy was changed!

Hitchens is the sort of person you might like. or like to disagree with over a couple of pints.

He called himself a Contraryest. If it was the common opinion he would disagree. He could write so you would enjoy reading even though you objected to every word he said.

Politically he was a a Trotskyite or something close. So he was a little lenient on the lefties. But then President Clintons' supporters wanted him to lie outright to support Clinton, He not only refused he published that he refused. After the left came at him for that he added them to his targets

You and he would seldom agree but would have enjoyed downing few pints.

From what I read of him I think you are probably right, Hank. However, you might enjoy his brother Peter who is a regular writer for The Daily Mail and who resolutely refuses to be typecast as a Right-winger:http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/